Disposed

M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited v. M/s. Vamadeva Greenfields Pvt. Ltd.

Telangana HC1 Mar 2023CRP/4812/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a batch of civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution in a common order, noting that counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw them. The Court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the petitions with a direction to the trial court to decide maintainability of the plaint presentation by an authorized agent separately.

What did the court decide?

The Court dismissed the civil revision petitions with the following observations: the factual finding recorded by the trial Court regarding presentation by a proper person before the trial Court is se

M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁶⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

C.R.P. N osi4804.4757 4769 4776 4783 4786 4787 .4788 4789 4790 4791 4793 4754 4795 4796 4799 4803 4805 4806 4807 4808 4809 4810 4812 4813. M14.4815. 4873. 4874.4875.4878 & 4889 of 2017

¶7

C.R.P.No.4804 of 2017

¶8

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order dated. 21-06-2016 passed in 1.A.No.3537 ol 2015 in O P No 513 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Coud, Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Itrl/s Satyam Computer Services Limited,^(now known as^lvl/s Tech^{t4ahindra Ltd.) havrng its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit^- 12,^Plot No.^{35/36, Hi-tech City} Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, Andhra^{Pradesh -} 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel Mr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶11

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶12

AND

¶13

M/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office^{at H.No.EWS 1040,} lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad^- 500072^{Represented by its} Special Power of Attorney Holder. M/s. Vishwamitri Green^{Lands private Limited} Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv^{Nagar, Yousufguda,} Hyderabad - 500 045.^,

¶14

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju. S/o. Late D. Krishnam^Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 102,^{DhanunlayaNest, RaJiv} Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶15

.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶16

CRPMP. NO: 6258 OF 2017

¶17

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^praylrrg that^{irr thc crrctrmstances stated} rn the affidavit filed in support of the^petition thr'; l'lrqh Cor:rt may be^{pleased stay} all further proceedings in O.P.No.513 of 2O1o^{irrr thc frle of the I Additional Chief} Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^pending disposai^{of the Revisron Petition}

¶18

Counsel^{for the Pr ti':ioner:SRI P VENKAT REDDY}

¶19

Counsel^{for the R' rsrondent:SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K V}

¶20

C.R.P.No^{47 5l (\I.:0 l7}

¶21

Petitio,r urrc"r^{Arlicle221' ol lf'c Constitulronof lrrdia'a'-r;:insl the Order dated} 01-06-2016^{pass;eritr lA Nl'.1-112of 2015 in O'P No'94 ot2(. 10 on the file of the} court^{of the I Acldilrral clrief Jucige. city civrl oourt s')cunrl )r:rllarl}

¶22

Between

¶23

Mi s Satyam^{(l(' nl uter ScTvrcesf l6rled' (now know 1 3s lu s Te lh t'4ahindra Ltd)} havino LavoJt its Srrrvei Lo:;^{Ctlir:e No ( 4} ' ' "l;;;;^{ni'jlfi;,';'"nh-o'tt'"t' i;i;"itvLr'nt - rz Arrolrir Po'" P'adesh 3i'36Hi-tech - 500 Citv08} h""'r:;;^{iL.''Ljr,i i.orporate'-;'',l''\rr SudhnkarForrpar7}

¶24

...PETIT^{ONEI?/RESPONDENT}

¶25

AND

¶26

Ir,4/s. Pancllal.'al^{atlt Aqro.Farrr: P:1 LtLj ,, Registered^c,f{ire:at l-l,No.EWS 1040,} lll^{phase.l(pntL ot,,ny.t ,,'-,, ;," ;r,r,ioruoio} ,sr^{0o /1' "r orcsefltedby its} Soecial P' '\ cr(''\ll')^{ne/ 11''Ll''' i'l 'Vlshwamitrl(lreetl I; hdl; private Limited} H'avinq^its or'^{. :r' f -,t N, 'i} 'i^o-t " "r"'"^{N"it euli'No( ar' Yousufguda'} HyderZba I^{;o t'4t;}

¶27

Reoresen'eri^{bv ill; t rreclor\4r D V S StrbbaRaju'S/o - ltr:) D KrishnamRaju'} aoed about⁴⁴ 1r::^{rs O",, :,,r,,iu, io" iiuiNo.',102,Dhe rrLrn]aya Nest, Rajiv} NZ;"r; Y;;'i'i'i^{rar' r-lvd'''r} '^{r t} 'rr^o45

¶28

.. RESP()^{I''I DENT/P ETITIONER}

¶29

CRPMP NO 6200^{oF 2017}

¶30

Petitionun:i:rsecttotrl5lcPCprayingthatlnthelrcumstancesstated in the stay all^{aff funh idavit 'r {} I^{le r:} '^{;' ,,t e{lrq' tupi't"t iii C F ttt" )l f} "tition o'1 ol 2010^{ihe Hitrh} 01 l'r{)^{Cr rr} 1r' -'^rnjry o the^{be I Additionalpleased to} Chief Judge^{C t;' C vr t'ot'ti"''l"t'ir:rabad penditlgdlst'( sal of the Revision} Petition.

¶31

Counsel^{for the Pr ti :ioner:SRI P VENKAT REDDY}

¶32

Counsel^{for ihe R '. re6dsr-tt SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K' V}

¶33

C.R.P.No^{47ti9 of . 017}

¶34

Pet tto^{I t'r} ,j- ia i le ),: i '.:i'.i',:ilorlstltulion^{of lrldi;r' a!r' irls' the Order dated'} , , i A Nr^,1')ii(-r oi 21)1ir^{in O.P.SR llo ;l2C(; :f 2O1O on the file of} 01^{-06- 201 ii r': t:,'} 'r' the Court^{of t re I ir rr' iL( rrill Lli :.f .Jil'lri'r' City Crvil Court'Seclrrlrlrlbad}

¶35

Between:

¶36

tt//s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as M/s Tech L/ahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No. 35/36, Hi-tech City Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 500 0B Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel [,4r Sudhakar Kompally

¶37

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶38

AND

¶39

M/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Regrstered office at H.No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally,.Hyderabad - 500072 Represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder. Mis. Vishwamitri Green Lands private Limited Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶40

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 years, Occi Drrector. R/o. Flat No.^'102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad 500 045

¶41

..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶42

CRPMP. NO: 6219 OF 2017

¶43

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedrngs in O.P.SR.No.2206 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revision Petition

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶46

C.R.P.No.4776 of 2017

¶47

Petition under Anide 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated. 28-04-2016 passed in LA No 4494 of 2015 rn O.P No.338 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶48

Between:

¶49

[//s Satyam CompLrter Services Lrmrterl. (rrow known as [vl/s Tech Mahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam Infor:riy LJn t - 12, Plot No. 35/36, Hi{ech City Layout, Survey No 64, tuladhapur. R R District, Andhra Pradesh - 500 0B Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel l\1r Sudhakar Kompally

¶50

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶51

AND

¶52

I,4is. Panr il,ir; L,':rri Aglro F:rrms Pvt. Ltd.,, Regtstered oflir:t: a:^l-l No.t-WS^1040, lll Phase f([Hl^()olrr.y, Kukatpally Hyderabad - 5(r007i]^{Fl, ,pr€sentc,d} by^its Special P v.,e:r, f \tt:rney Holder: l'lls. Vishwamilri^{(lreen L.i} nd:;^prrv:tte Limited Having rt: c'f cr ;r FIat No. 102. Dhanunjaya Nest, Raliv Nat ar^{Yotrsufctuda.} Hyrdr:r:;b;r I i0^lll.ll;

¶53

Rr:prescr. ';r: i,y its f ireclor \4r. D.V S. Subba Raju, S/o. l-irlt [). Krishnarn Ralu, aged .rr)oLil^."'1 \ r:: rs Oct;. Director, R/o. Flat No. 10.2, Dl-ar,r njaya Nr'st. Rajiv Nagar Yolrsilrt c,r^tlydoral)ad - 500 045

¶54

...RESP()NDE NT/PETITIONER

¶55

CRPMP. NO: 6226 Ol: 2017

¶56

Pel lro'' r ',,1 r Sr>ctioo 151 CPC praying that ir tho circur,rsti,rncr:s stated in the affirla'., i i |^,rj rn srrppcrt of the petition, the High Court r.ay be^p1-.ascd stay erll furlner prri.r:rli rqs rn O.P l'lo.33B of 2010 on the^rile of tF: I Addrt onal Chref Judge. Cil;^(-' v^r-)r rr1 3ecunde rabad^pending disposal of t rer Rsvrsion Petrtion

¶57

C.R.P.No.478I o' iL )17

¶58

Pet ior r^{r ii,} /,ni,rie 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, ag::inst^:hc O'cicr datccl 01 06-201(.i o:,;sr:rl r IL No.3347 of 2015 in O.P.No.272 of It).0 <n tht; lrle of the Courl of thr: I ., l,l t ,- r.ri C hrcf Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderal ad

¶59

Betwee n

¶60

M/s Satyan^(./)rr )L ter Services Limited, (now known as N,4/.. -'ecl [,4;rhrnCra Lki ) hav rrq rts L rr'^('f, rt at llal'r'am Infocity, Unit - 12, Plot l\1,) 35i 10, tl^.1ech Crty Layout. Su^,rr.', ,io^{r j4,} l\rladhapur, R.R. District, Andh.e l)ra,icslr 500 08 Rcp lrv. ts⁽ h,ri .l()rp,)rztte Counsel lVr. Sudhakar Kornpally

¶61

...PETlTlONl:R/l?ESPONDENT

¶62

AND

¶63

N4/s. Panr;h; k;rli,-r'r Aqro Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office et H lto.EViS l040 lll Phase KI'Htl ::r1.rny, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 50O(t72 R€F)reserrte(l^-)y rts Sper;ial Pov,,:r r1 ,,1lrrney l-lolder. lVl/s. Vishwamitri Grr:en Lanr s p'rvatc L nritcd Havrrtrl rts oltrr ,L l:^:rl No. 10:2, Dhanunjaya Nest, RaJiv Naqa.r^'/cLrst f, L,rle Hydcrlb.r,1^:-, I il

¶64

Rcpr;seirte, l, I. (.ci.r lv'lr D V.S. Subba Raju, Skr. Lale I^(r shr;rlr Il:rlLr aged alxr, rt I j - l-r:r. [) re,ctor, R/o. Flat No. 102, lhanur ,].i Nc-ii ^-iijrv Nag:r r Yr. L:s 1: 1'/.icTilb.rd .500 045

¶65

..RESPON Di:NT/PEl ITIONER

¶66

CRPMP. NO: 6235 OF 2017

¶67

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statcd in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleascd stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.272 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chiei Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pending disposat of the Revision Petition and pass such further order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶68

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶69

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶70

C.R.P.No.4786 of 2017

¶71

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 01-06-2016 passed in l A.No 3134 of 2015 in O.P.No.5l0 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Addifional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶72

Between

¶73

lVl/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as [Vl/s Tech tr,4ahindra Ltd ) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No- 35/36, Hi-tech Crty Layout, Survey No. 64, li/adhapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh 500 0B Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel lvlr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶74

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶75

AND

¶76

lVl/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office at H.No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 50OO72 Represented by rts Special Power of Attorney Holder: M/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands private Limited Having its office at Flat No.^'102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda. Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶77

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶78

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶79

CRPMP. NO: 6240 OF 2017

¶80

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancos st:rted in the affidavrt frled rn support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to stay all fLrrther proceedings in O.P.No. 510 of 2010 on the file of the I Addilional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revrsion Pr:titron.

¶81

Counsel for the P rtitioner: SRI^{P. VENKAT REDDY}

¶82

Counsel for the R:soondent: SRI K.^SIDDHARTHRAO

¶83

C.R.P. No.4787 of : 1017

¶84

Pct tion unC( r,\rticle 227 of llte Constitution^{of lt drl} .^{il-r;rT:;1 Llre Orrlcr dated.} O1-C6 2016^p:rssc,: ir 1.A.No.3418^{of 2015 in O.P.SR.l'lo.:'.Z.)ltl '.a1arrn the file of} the Coufi of tire I Ar ditional Chief Judge,^{City Civil Cour lleLttrjct,rl.rad}

¶85

Between:

¶86

lr.4/s Satyarr C;or tputer Services Limited,^(now knowrr^{a:; l'4 ; Tct:h ltJahrndra Ltd.)} having iis LocaL O'frce at Satyam lnfocity, Unrt^{- 12. Plrt Ii:.la} ':j6.^{lltech City} Layout. Srrrvr:y N:. 64, Madhapur,^{R.R. District. ArcJhrt f)r rrlesl-500 08} Rep.by. its Chiel Ccrporate Counsel^l,4 r Sudlrakar^K'rmr:rl ',

¶87

...PETITI ] IJEF /RESPONDENT

¶88

AND

¶89

tr//s. Pancl ak:)ly iniAgro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,,^{Registerr-'rl olftr;trr I H flo Er^JS 1040,} lll Phase, liPl-18 Solony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad^{50(1072 F,ri)r::i:n[']il 5y its} Spe cial Po'ruer 01 Altorney Holder:^l,4/s. Vishwamrtrr^{Greerr L;t rr's} orivalc:^Lrtnited Having its offic,e rt^;lat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, R.rliv^{lriz il rr )'oustttrluda,} Hyderabad - 530 0,t5.

¶90

Representc,d byis Director li,4r. D.V.S. Subba Ra1u. S o Lr^i: I^l(r srlr atn^Raiu, aged about 44 y(ars, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat^{No .102D rltr Lltl,ry t Nr)sl Rajiv} Nagar, Yor-rsuf3Lr la, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶91

...RESPO \ I) t: r\ T/PETITIONER

¶92

CRPMP. NO: 6241^(tF 2017

¶93

Petilion unle [ier:tion 151 CPC^praying that ir th,;^t 'r^{:L t' st:tnl:.sstated} rn the affidavit frlt:dⁱⁿ support of the^petition, thct^H r;I C lilr'^{rrlr' bt:} l^easedto stay all furlhr:r^p,rcreedings in O.P.SR No.2235 cri^{)010 rr} |'t:^{lrli' ot theI} Additronal Chi,-.f .iuc ge, City Civrl Court, Secunde^{raba, j per} tl^{rr; I} si)osal^{of the} Revisro n Petit,rn.

¶94

Counsel for the Pet lioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶95

Counsel for the Res cc,ndent: SRI RUBAINA S. KHATCON

¶96

C.R.P.No.4788 of 20 17

¶97

Petition irrrr-l-.r^t'.icle 227 of the Constltutior^,rf lrtd^{'r. .ri : rl,' (-rl".lr} dated 01002|)1G1lasse:c1tlA,No.3176of2O,]5illoP[.lc',:)1(.'.||-! Courl of iirc i Atidrl o'al Cltief Judqe, Cily^Orvrl Coi:rt.^{Siec rnr c:lr ' ii:}

¶98

Between:

¶99

M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as [,4/s Tech tMahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No 35/36, Hilech City Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. Dislrict, Andhra Pradesh - 500 0B Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel [,4r, Sudhakar Kompally

¶100

..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶101

AND

¶102

M/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office at H No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder: [vl/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands private Limited Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajrv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶103

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶104

.,RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶105

CRPMP. NO: 6242 OF 2017

¶106

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thc High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.P.No. 511 of 2O10 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revrsion Petition

¶107

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶108

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO

¶109

C.R.P.No.4789 of 2017

¶110

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia. agarnst the Order dated. 01-06-2016 passed in 1.A.No.3417 of 2015 in O.P SR.No 2228 ot 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad

¶111

Between:

¶112

Ir,4/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known :rs f,.4's Tcch t\4ahrndra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity. Unit - 12. Piot No. :15r3t1, Hr-tech City Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R. R. District. n nclhra Pradesh 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel IVlr Sudhakar Kor.npally

¶113

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶114

AND

¶115

M/s. Panrhalial iari Agro-Farnls^Pv1. Ltd ,,^{Rcgistert:d<;flit;t: at ll.No.EWS 1040'} lll Phase. KPHt t)ol:ny. Kukatpally^{Hyderabad - 5(r007;2 Ri:pre sented by its} Special P,rwr:r r f ,\ttorrrey Holder:^{N'l/s.Vishwamltri(lreen t-,,lndll private Limited} Hbving its offic€ a Flat No. 102. Dhanunjaya Nest,^{Flaliv Na,rar, Yousufguda,} Hyderabad^- 50 .) 04{)

¶116

Represented b) it:j f)irector Mr. D.V S. Subba^{Ralu, S/c. L rt,r D Krishnam Raju,} aged about 44 1,:;,rs, Oc,: Direclor,^{R"o Flat No'10.1.Dh: ttitnlaya Nest, Rajiv} Nagar, YousLrfll Ida, Hydera3ad 500 045

¶117

.I?ESP()t lDE NT/PETITIONER

¶118

CRPMP. NO:6243 OF 2017

¶119

Petitior und )r S-.ction 15'l CPC^prayirrg that n the^{,:irt;unstances} stated in the affidavit f le,r^r-r :rupport of the^{petrlion,the Hilrh Corrrt rnay be pleasedto} stay all furtl-rer^prrceedinqs n O P SR No.2228 of^{2010 |} n^lhe file of^theI Additional Chief ;r d,;e City Crv I Courl Secunclerat^{ad p( n'lincdisposalof lhe} Revision Petition

¶120

Counsel for the Pe titiorrer: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶121

Counsel for the Rt sJrondent: SRI K. SIDDHARTH^RAO

¶122

C.R.P.No.4790 of 2517

¶123

Petitior und€^' ltrl.rcle 2'-27 o{ thc Corstitutron of In'jia, atla nst the Order dated. 01-06-2016 piass:d in L.1"1c.33.1!r^{c:{ '2')1it} n O.P.No.2/3 of 2(110 :n the file of^the Court of the L\dcit( nitl^(lhier Jir(].j.). Or,; Ct,ii^CcLrrt, Sccurlcerarlilc.

¶124

Between:

¶125

M/s Satyarn Co:"^puter Serv,Ccs^{Lrnrrtr:ri. (now} known as^l,4, s fech tf/ahindra^Ltd.) having its l-ocal .)ffic:r at Saiy:rnr ln'cr rty Unit 12.^Pk.tl I'lo^ll5/36, Hi{ech City Layout, SLrrvery Nr>. 64, fu;rdh;:pLtr. It R. t)istrict, Andhtar Prtrdesh - 500⁰⁸ Rep.by. its Chief C,rrf,oratc CoL rt-sL, l"1r Sudhakar^KrrmpallT

¶126

...PETITI()I.IER/RESPONDENT

¶127

AND

¶128

M/s. Pancl-akzri5, rn A'rrrr lr:r. rs P',1^,-i,1 . Rr-qrsterecl of [it;e zrt i].No.E/VS^'1040, lll Phase, [..P]-lB ]t,lo ry, i'.1;ir rilrall, H',ilei-ltlracl^- 50(C72 Fr::rr:sented by^rts Special Po'^rcr ol A to ncy H l!1r:i-^{i I} ::^{\r'rsh\v3n'ritn} Gr-een L:rrds Drivate Limited Having its off rce^, Lt^:l: I No i l)z' Dira'rLrnlaylr Nc:st, Rrrliv Nait; r .ousufguda, Hyderahad 5li)^{1l- s}

¶129

Represente ri l-, i.j )rri:;t,.r L r l', S -i:;rlr:r Rlr1u. S o. Le ir ). l.Lrishram Raju, aged about 4.1 yr:rr-;. lcc Drrcctor. R,r' Flut^{i\o 102} DlrerrLr^rlaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar. You:,L,f1u a I yder:rl',,r(l^{ir0i.r (1.i5} ...RESt'ONDl: f'T/F'ETITIONER

¶130

CRPMP. NO: 6244 OF 2017

¶131

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.273 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revisron Petition.

¶132

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶133

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶134

C.R.P.No.4791 ot 2017

¶135

Petition under A rlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated. 01-06-2016 passed in 1A.No.3224 of 2015 in O.P SR No.2208 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Coud, Secunderabad.

¶136

Between:

¶137

[//s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as [,4/s Tech Mahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No, 35/36, Hi-tech City Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel l!4r. Sudhakar Kompally

¶138

...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT

¶139

AND

¶140

Mis. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Regrstered office at H.No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder: M/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands private Limited Having lts offrce at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶141

Represented by its Director lvlr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44years, Occ: Drreclor. R/o. Flat No^'102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar,Yousufguda,Hyderabad 500045 ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶142

CRPMP. NO: 6245 OF 2017

¶143

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled rn support of the petrtion. thc High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in O P.SR No 2208 ot 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, Crty Civil Court. Secunderahad pcnding disposal of the Revision Petition.

¶144

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶145

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUBAINA S. KHATOON

¶146

C.R.P.No.4793 of 2( 1l

¶147

Petit on .rr.-.rr^tt,ltcle 227^{<>f the constitution of lnd a, aqil f s: t re orderdatcd} 15 06-20'1 6^pa rseC )^{A No 52:! of 2016 in O.P SR.No 2231 :f 20' 0 on thc filc of} the Court of the Lr,rlr^{tr rn al Chief Jucjge, City Civil Court, Serlur(1,'ratad.}

¶148

Betwee n

¶149

M/s Satyam 0: tl tu:r:r^{Servic<:sLimitr:d,(now known'ls IVI/s} I'e,:h lVlah ndra Ltd. ) havrrrg ris L^,c: I^{rfl .e} at Satyarn^{lnfocity, Unit - 12, [rlo1Nrr} 35/ 16, H^-tech City Layoul, Sulrcr/ Jtr) [i4 lrladhapur.^{R.R. District,_/tndhre} [)rarlesh - 500 08 Rep ny ils^{(.hr{rf( :c)fporate} Counsel^{tt4r. SudhakarKornpally}

¶150

...PETlTlONl:R/l?ESPONDE^NT

¶151

AND

¶152

lVl/s Panch:iir:ly:r^ri Aqro^{Far|ns Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office 3t H.l'lo.E\ArS i04O} lll Plrasr: K 'Hil I o^rrny. Krrkatpally.^{Hyderabad - 500072Re ptesr nted by its} Sper:ral Po',t,;r^{,-rf I,tlorrrcy Hokjer.l\rlls.VishwamitriGr':en L-z rr:ls privatt:Lirriteld} Havrrrg rls o lrrc a t ;lt No^{102 Dhanunjaya Nest, Rariv Naca',Yousufgucla.} Hydcrabad 50(l^rr4)

¶153

Representcrl tr), 1t^; [) roctor^l\lr. D.V.S.^{Subba Raju, S/']. Lat(' t.' K"ishnam Raju} age(i allout i4^yi-, I!, C)cc Dlrector,^{R/o.Flat No. 102, Dhantrtrjaya Nest, Rajiv} Naclar, You: uf.rir, :. Hydr-'rabad^{500 045}

¶154

...RESPOT D EN-'iPETITIONER

¶155

CRPMP. NO:6247 OF²⁰¹⁷

¶156

Petrtron .rr.r r:t Sjection 151 CPC^{praying that in the cir. rm:;tances:lt:lted} in the alficla,rrt^ll.]:i I iullrort of the^{petition,the High Courlr-ray be pleascd lo} stay all furthr:^{rr ot} .':rlinrls^{in O.P SR No.2231of 2O1Oc rl thc file of thr':I} Additional Ch r I .l-rri tr:^(lrty Civil^{Court, Secunderabadpen(lrrg cisprlsal of the:} Revisior- Petttrr^.

¶157

Counsel for thr: Pcti^roner: SRI^{P. VENKAT REDDY}

¶158

Counsel for tht: Rr:s^{iondent:SRIRUSHEEK REDDY K V}

¶159

C.R.P.No 4794 ttf 1!0⁷

¶160

Ptrlrtro'r |'r11(,'^{,.', .} : )21 o; tlre Constitution of lndiil, aga^{rr!t th3 CTi:i,r iiiltc;j} O1 OO 2(llil r,r:,-i, r^{Lrr 'r.;.-j(1" irtf 2015in O.P.No.97of 2C1t)or' tht, ll} ';^{,;f tl'} Court o[ .ir,^{j I} /(^{] 1i rr- r} .li^{i:l .1r.,.:t;r: C ty Civil Court, Secttnderat I d.}

¶161

Betwee n:

¶162

lvl/s Satyam Computer Services Lrmiled,^(now known as^{[r,4/sTech MahindraLtd.)} having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit^- 12, Plot No.^{35/36, Hi-tech City} Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 500^0B Rep.by its Chief Corporate Counsel IVr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶163

.,.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶164

AND

¶165

It4/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office at H.No.EWS^1040. lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Represented by^its Special Power of Attorney Holder: IVI/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands^private Limited Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶166

Represented by its Director lMr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam^Ra1u, aged about 44years, Occ: Director, Rl/o. Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶167

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶168

CRPMP. NO: 6248 OF 2017

¶169

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleasedto stay all furlher proceedings in O.P.No.97 of 2010 on the file of the^{I Additiona,} Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^pending disposal of the Revision Petitio n.

¶170

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶171

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUBAINA S. KHATOON

¶172

C.R.P.No.4795 oI 2017

¶173

Petitron under Arltcle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order^dated 15-06-2016 passed in l A.No 624 of 2016 in O.P.SR.No.2223 of^{2010 on the file of} the Court of the I Acjditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶174

Between:

¶175

|",1's Satyam Cor.npuler Services Limited,^(now known as^{l,4is Techlt4ahrndraLtd..r} havinlt rts Local Offlce at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12,^{Plot No. 35/36, Hi-techCtty} Layout. Survey No. 64, It/adhapur, R-R. District,^{AndhraPradesh- 500 0!l} Rep by its Chief Corporate Counsel Mr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶176

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶177

AND

¶178

[\4/s. P:rnclrakrl;^{arr Agro-FarmsPvt Ltd' , Regrstere.lo-lfic j} rt F No t\r/S¹ 040 iii^{prrui".r<prlri Crloiy, Kukatpally'HyderaLrad- 50 )072 tl} rre;cnli:1^{bY its} (,',, .,-ia Pr .ve tt A ttornev Holder: lVl s. Vishwamttrt⁽ 'rc'^:T - rr ls pri'rrrte^Lrmited H;;;; it ,ii^., :t^{FlatN'o 102, DhanunjayaNestFallv r'lr} rr /ou srrfgLida, Hyclerirbarl^- 50(⁰⁴⁵

¶179

Reurest:ntld^irv tS Drrector^{Mr. D.V.S.SubbaRaju, il/O-L-t tr' [) Kr'rslr ratrr R:'t]u} ,)"1,!i?,",.,'i+ir,ur.,Oit,^{oir"ctor'R/o FlatNo 1O;'f)haLrra"jNr:stRajtv} Na'rar. /o^{rsr[,jt d;r. Hyderabad 500 045}

¶180

.,RESP()NDE^{\T/PETITIONER}

¶181

CRPMP. NO 9249-?12017

¶182

cCsstated Petrtiorlulld)rSectionl5lCPCprayingthatrnlrt:t;.ctitrst:r in the affiriavrt^{filed ir support of the petition,the High Cour t't't' lre nleasedstay} ottfrrtf,l"rprc'ce(lclnclsinO.P.SRNo2223of201Oorllr€'l'rcttht'llrriditronal at,i"f lr.tg"^{Ciry Sivil Court, Secunderabad pendir g 'l :rr ;rr '' Ilr' []cvrsion} P ctit io'r^.

¶183

Counsel for the^{P€ titioner:SRIP. VENKATREDDY}

¶184

Counsel for the^{Re spondent:SRIRUBAINA S' KHATooN}

¶185

C.R.P.No. 4796^{of 2017}

¶186

Petitior urde^{r l\rticle227of Ihe Constitution or lndt:r rr'l I nsl thc Orilerclated} i)l06-2016plssedinl.A.No.3348of2O15ino'P,No,275of:,(11]cl.lllllleilfthe (lour1 of the I \dcliti' rn;l Chief Judge, City Civil^{CourtScctr rcir tr h'rt}

¶187

Betwee n:

¶188

N,4/s Salvarn C.or louter Services^{Limlted,(norv knowr:t:;[u4 ; Tt:r i' hlllr rrrlr:l Ltd')} i1.-,.;;'i;1".;i 5i; risrivm^{lrfocitv Unrr rlPr rl r' ' \rI r^ rrcrtv} L]v",it^{"sl*,,v n;.--64, tttuir,rprr,} -R^R .Di-strr't^A,ln '^{I'' ' l"} i{'0 08 R;t;t ils Cire^{Corporate Counsel Ivlr' Sudhakar K} 'rrr^{)al }

¶189

... F,ETITI O I'I EFI/RESPO^{N DENT}

¶190

AND

¶191

N,lis Panclrak'rl;:rr^{i Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd..,Re(lrsl(rr(il r.''fi':} 'ⁱⁱⁱ i.l, r L ,.-. li'43 ;, rri', ll', tls Iil^{phasc. l(PIlEi} Crlo;y,^{Kukatpally,Hydt-ralr:r'1 - i0- rU 2 Jii:-rrr} : I Su,rc al Pt \v',^{() pttornev Holder:l\4 s Vish^'arl l | ( I' |} i,^{l.:,i ,:rlliiir(j} ll, ,nc t. rff e, .ll Flat Nb.^{102,DhantlnlayaNcst Fa;r"'I'JI} 'rt /ttL,:;,11 til'l:l Hyderabarl - 1,0(^045.

¶192

Rerrrescnt.rcl )),^{ts Drrectorlr,4 r. D V.S Sutrb;t Ra;rr. ll'o I : lr [) lirr: iI r:r [1]-;Lt} arle,l abr-,1,t^{+,f 1v ,ari Occ: Director. R/o. Flat No} iq^{. Lrhat'rr ir /ir l'l!''i i1'r;i'} '11.'rqn1-. v,,,isL,fqi J,,. HyOeruOad 500 045 RESPONT^{E !T/)ETl-tlONER}

¶193

CRPMP. NO:6250 oF 2017

¶194

Petition under section 151 cpc praying flrat in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, if,n Uigf, Court may b" ;;;;;;i" stay €ll further proceedings in o.p.No.275 of 2010 on the fire or the r'adaitionat chref JLrdge, city civir court, Secundrerabad pending disposar of rhe Revision Petitio n.

¶195

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p. VENKAT REDDy

¶196

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDy K V

¶197

C.R.P.No.4 799 of 20'17

¶198

Petition under A dicre 227 0f the constitution of rndia, against the order dated. 01-06-2016 passed in r.A.No.3'l02 of 2o1s in o p.No.279 of 20r0 on the fire of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad.

¶199

Between:

¶200

lv/s satyam computer services Limited, (now known as Nrlis Tcch Mahrndra Ltd ) having its Locaroffice at satvam rnroc'iv. urii -iz ir,,i r,r" 3tbi;. rii:i;ti'i:iJ Lavout, Survey No. 64, naainapur.- n.ii^-oirtr.i Andnra p,aoesh - 500 0B Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Couniel tr,,f r SrOnaf a, i<ompatty

¶201

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶202

AND

¶203

Ir'4/s. Panchakarvani Aoro-Farms pvt..Ltd-.. Regisrered o[rcc at H.No.EWS 1040, X::|,1?e.Ltj ?.c^"]gry,^{KukatpaI I y, Hyd} r, iJ^_'s o oii z R o p rc s e n red bv i ts )pecrar Hower of Attornev Horder: M/s. Vishwamrrrr "r., Green Lanrii pri"iiu ii.iteo Havrng its office at Ftat N6. toz, orranunlaya'N;;i'i;;; Nagar, yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 04S.

¶204

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raiu. S/o .Late D Klshnam Raju, aged about 44 yearc, Occ: Directol _Rlo f f ii r.to-'ioi.^"Dn"nu,,1ryu Nest. Rativ Nagar. Yousufguda, Hyderabad - soo oas -..neSpSruoer.rilFrirrrbr.rEri

¶205

CRPMP. NO: 6254 oF 20,17

¶206

Petition under section r 51 cpc praying that rn the circumstances stated ln, the affidavit fired in suppirt of the petiiio;, tie Hrgh coLrrt .ay be preased stay ;rll [urther proceedings in o.p.No.279 of 2o1o on th"e filc or ttre i naditionat cnLt ,Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pendinq drsposal of rirc Rcvisron petition

¶207

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p. VENKAT REDDy

¶208

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO

¶209

C.R.P.No.4803 cf i01.7

¶210

Petitron ur,dr r t\fi,cle ?27 of tlte Constitutron o{ lndil:, ;trlr nst the Order dated. 21-06-201?) p,rssed in LA No.3535 of^'2015 in O.P No 514 ol ?(.10 on the^file of the Court of the | .Adcliti,^{,n,rl (lhier} Jurioe Clty Civil CoLlrt. S€ cund€ r.rb,l(^.

¶211

Between

¶212

lr//s Satyarn Cor^ rpL1l61 Serv c:r:s L nrtr--(]. (now knowr as^l,4 s fech lVanindra Ltd.) having its r ocal )ffice at Saty.rnr lniocity, Unil - 12. Plot ll,r ll5/36, Hi{ech City Layout, Strrve:y Nrr. 64, IV,atihapur R R. District, Anlhri, Pr;rdesh - 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief C,rrporate Counse i',4r. Sudhakar Krrmpall/

¶213

PETITIoN ER/RESPONDENT

¶214

AND

¶215

M/s. Panchak:rly,, Ln A,3ro-f:ainrs PvL. rtrl .. Regrstere( ofiice : . H.No EWS 1040, lll Phase, h.PFB )c lony, Kuk,rlpally f ;,cicrabacl 50( 07.2 Rr'1 resented by its Special Porver of Altorney Holrir:r l,1'; /ishitranritr G een Lar ds rrivate Limited Having its office i t l:lat No. 1l)2. Dharrunlaya l{cst R:r1iv Na3i r, Yousufguda, Hyderabad^- 500 lr5.

¶216

Represented t,y ir.s )i^-ec;tor lr4 r D V.S Subba Raju, S o L a c D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 y,33 5, Occ. Dtr:cioi- Il'| F:lat No. '1 02 Dh anurjrrya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufr;uda, lyderabad 500 t).15

¶217

RI-SPOI.I TIENT/PETITIONER

¶218

CRPMP. NO: 6256^(F 2017

¶219

Petition unrle Sler;tiorr 1i,, CPC i)rayrng that ir.r th: c r'( umstances stated in the affidavit filcC i t l;u1>porI^(,f the l)otrtr)n thc Hiqh^(lol rl rrr, Ly be pleased stay all further proceerlin.ls rn O.P.l'.lr 514 of 2010 on tlre fi e of trc I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil C)ot rt Secundt,triraii i-rr:rrrlrrtg iJrsposalol th:r le,isron Petition.

¶220

Counsel for the Peti :ic ner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶221

Counsel for the Res rcndent: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO

¶222

C.R.P.No.4805 of^'20 7

¶223

Petition r.nd,:r^{'^.ri)=} )27^rtr,. 1:^.l.iLlron lllndr r. lrgarrr;t tie Orrler dated. 24-06-2416 passecl ir Ilt.\o..ll^-'':.:'.' r'OPNo33, o1 :l( ll) orr the file of the Court of the I Acld tior, tl Cl ierf JLr] ;rr C ", '.. .^()orrr1. Sccrn(lera l). rc

¶224

Between:

¶225

IVI/S Satyam Computer Services Limited,^(now known as^lt4/s Tech^{l,4ahindraLtd.)} having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity. Unit^{12, Plot No. 35/36, Hi-tech City} Layout, Survey No. 64, lVladhapur, R. R. District. Andhra Pradesh - 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsei [14r. Sudhakar Kompally

¶226

.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶227

AND

¶228

M/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,. Registered office at^{H.No.EWS 1040,} lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad^{- 5OOO7} 2 Represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder: N4/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands^private Limited Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Raliv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶229

Represented by its Director l/r. D.V.S. Subba Raju, Sio. Late D. Krishnam^Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o.^{Flat No. 102, DhanunjayaNest, Rajiv} Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶230

..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶231

CRPMP. NO: 6259 OF 2017

¶232

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^rn the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition.the High} Court^{may be pleased to} stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.334 of^{2O1Oon the file of the I Additional} Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^{pendingdisposal of the Revision} Petition.

¶233

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶234

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K.^V

¶235

C.R.P.No.4806 ot 2017

¶236

Petition under A rticle 227 of the Constitution of^{lndia, against the Order dated.} 01-06-2016 passed in l-A.No.3416 of^2O15 in O.P SR^{No.2230 ot 2O1Oon the file of} the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge.^{City CivilCourt, Secunderabad.}

¶237

Between:

¶238

Ivl/s Satyam Computer Services Limited.^{(no''vkno'r"n as lt4/s Tech lt/lahindra Lld} ) having iis Local Office at Satyam lnfocity Unrt^'1 2^{Plot No. 35/36,HitechCity} Layoul, Survey No. 64, tl,4adhapur, R.R. Distrii;l.^{AndhraPradesh- 500 08} ReO,bV its Chief Corporate Counsel^{lV1r. Sudhi:k::rKornpally}

¶239

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶240

AND

¶241

lVl/s. Panchaka ' an r\gro-Farms PVt. Ltd.,, Registered office^rrt F.No.EWS^1040, lll Phase. KP-lE Cokrny. Kukatpally. Hyderabad^- 500072^liepresented by^its Specia Powe r⁽ l'l\ttorney Hclder: M/s. Vishwamitri^(lreen Ltrnds^{private Limited} Havinq its off cr: al F al Nc. '02. Dhanunlaya Nest, F.ajiv Nag;ar, Yousufguda. Hyderaba,-1 r0 ) 145,.

¶242

Represented rv it: [)rrcclor N,l' D.V.S. Subba Raju,^l3io L.lte, D Krisnnam Raju. aged about^.14y<-, :rrr;, 3cc. D'rector, R/o. Flat No.^102, Dranurjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar Yousulgud. l-lycierabad^" 500 045

¶243

..RESPOt\ DE NT/PETITIONER

¶244

CRPMP. NO: 6250 OF 2017

¶245

Petitio'.r un,::-'r Section 151 CPC praying that n the circu nstances stated in the affidavit fi er irr support cf the petition, the High Cour: rray be pleased stay all furlher proceerl nr.;s in O.P SR.No.2230 of 2010 on the f l,) o1 the I Additional Chief Judqe. City C vi Corfl. Secunderabad pendirrg dis rosal of the Revision Petitio n

¶246

Counsel for the P{ ti1 ioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶247

Counsel for ihe Rr strondent: RUBAINA S. KHATOON

¶248

C.R.P.No.4807 of^',0 i7

¶249

Pel.itiorr LrnCr r ,\r1 cie 227 oi lle Constitution of India, a larnst the Order dated. 2B-04-2O1,6 p:rssei irr l.A.No 311'1 4 of 2015 in O.P.No.337 of 2(.)1O on the file of the Court of the I r\r:riir, rnal Chief iLrdge, City Civil Court, Secundr:reba<l.

¶250

Between

¶251

lr,4/s Satya r^(1., iJ. Lrt,)r Sr:n, ces Limited, (now knowrr as lV/s Teoh lr,4ahindra Ltd. ) having rts Lor;a Offrce at S.ttyam lnfocity, Unit -'12 Plol 'Jc. 3ii/36, Hi-tech Ciry Layout. SLrrv:v I'. o. il4. Lladnapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 500 C8 Rep.by itsr Cirie C orporate Counsel l,4 r. Sudhakar Kompally

¶252

...PETITIOI{ER/RESPONDE NT

¶253

AND

¶254

lvl/s. Panc a(.:r^{ rnr rrr.lro F.rr':s Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered offic: irt H.No.E\rVS 10,10 lll Phasc iil-. 1E Colony. Krii(3',rr.rlly. Hyderabad - 500072 llepresented by its Spr:cial Power : l/rttorrre,rⁱ¹ r rjer. lviis. Vishwamitri^(lreen -ands privatt: Ltnrrted Havinq its,)[Irr]o^',,11 F al N; l(12 Dhanunlaya Nest, Rajiv N;91ar-. Yousufguda. HyderaDa(l - lrL^{r r} L.ia}

¶255

Represent,jci lrr,, rts t, rr:cto. ii', D V.S 51r55, Raju, S/o L;ttr, D. Krishnanr R:l;Lr aged about^,1.1 1t' rr. lLti: f,^.t ;toT Ri o Flat No. 102, D ranurlay;t Nest. Ral ,r Nagar Yo,.rsL igirl;: l tvc er:l::r,: 5llil !,i5 ...RESPONDEiNTi PETITIONER

¶256

CRPMP. NO: 6261 OF 2017

¶257

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.P.No,337 of 2010 on the file of the I Addrtionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revision Petitron.

¶258

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶259

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶260

C.R.P.No.4808 ot 2017

¶261

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia, against the order dated. 28-04-2016 passed in 1.A.No.3316 of 2016 in O.p.No.335 of 2010 on the fite of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶262

Between:

¶263

l\ills Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as M/s Tech lr,/ahindra Ltd ) having its- Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No. 35/36, Hi{ech City Layout, Survey No. 64, lr,/adhapur, R.R. District, Andhra pradesh - 500 0g Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel [r,4r_ Sudhakar Kompally

¶264

..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶265

AND

¶266

{/is Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office at H.No.EWS 1040, lll Phase-. KPHB_Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder: I\rlls. Vishwamitri Green Lahds private [imited Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Vousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 C45.

¶267

Represented by its Drrector lVr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 yearc, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda. Hyderabad - 500 045 ...RESPONDENT/PETIT|ONER

¶268

CRPMP. NO: 6262 OF 2017

¶269

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further procecdrngs in O.P.No.335 of 2O1O on the file of the I Additional Chref Judge, Crty Crvll Cour1, Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revision petttion.

¶270

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶271

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶272

C.R.P.No.4800 ol 2t 1'7

¶273

Petitjcn Lrnrlcr Ani<le 227 of the Constitution of Inrtia. irg:r,rsl hc Oricr dated. 01-06-201U par;secl r .A.No.3325 of 2015 in O.P.SR.No.2'.!21 , 2i 10 on lhe file of the Court of tho I l\cl, itional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Securr'l -.ralr:rd

¶274

Betwee n:

¶275

It4/s Satyan Conr ruter Servict:s Limited, (now known as lVir; Ir:cir l,"4al' n,ir:r Ltd.) havrng its Loc:rl^()ff ce at Salyam lnfocity, Unit - 12,^)lo: l\l- .15 3i). Hr tech City Laycut, Su ve'z Jo.^()4, lVladhapur, R.R. District. ,\nrlhrir^r a li:sh 500 0B Rep. by. rts tlh r-.[ )orporate Counsel N4r. Sudhakar Ko rp:l I

¶276

...Pt:TlTlC N aR/RESPONDENT

¶277

AND

¶278

I,4/s Panch: <alya ri Agro-Farnrs Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered ofl r:,-. : i H l]o E".'Sⁱ 040 lll Phase KPHtI⁽ olony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 50OA72 Fir: I r:sr:ntcC rrv ts S1:ecial Pov, i..r^()f . \ttorney Holder: Ir,4/s. Vrshwamilri Gr:er t-:r'r,l:r ; r vat, L nrited Havinq its olfic(r u) Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Ra rv I!:trrl Y rlsitlrllcl.:r Hydcrabad 500⁽ 4:i.

¶279

Rcprcscnted [.r 111; I^tilr;9191 Mr. D.V.S. Subba Ralu, S/,; Li:t(t J iillSr)r :,rit Ralu, irged nbout 44 yeat ,, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 10i , L)ha rr rrlaya Ni)st Rajiv Nagar, Yousufgrda,. I ytlerabad - 500 045

¶280

...RESPOr\ D aN--/PEl ITIONER

¶281

CRPMP. NO: 6263 O '^'.1.017

¶282

Potition rrnder- S:ction 151 CPC praying that rn thr ci-: rnrr,t;rr,r:, s st.lted rrr thc aff ciavit .ller j i ' :;upport of the petition, the High Cru-t r u! t).r rr ,riis.(l to stay all further prot )e dings in O.P.SR.No 2221 of 211() crr t.r. fri,) )f thc I Addrtional Chiel JuC,le City Civil Court, Secunderaba( ir )n( l'.t r s;),r .l rf rhc Rcvisio n Petitio n.

¶283

Counsel for the Petit oner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶284

Counsel for the Res6 orrdent: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO

¶285

C. R.P.No.4810 of 2017

¶286

Pr,l tron u rdr:r^r 1i:le 227 of the Constitlition of lnrlr; lr 1:r :, :lr : C, ; irl li-j 20 lil [],rs:-oc n l/r.No.4262 of 2015 in O P.SR.No.1 2.. l.' .rl:rr I til.r Courl of thc I AriC I :nal Chief Judge, City Civil Courl. S::r:.rrC, r rir. ri

¶287

Between:

¶288

l,4/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as N//s Tech N4ahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No. 35/36, Hi tech City Layout, Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 500 0B Rep by. its Chief Corporate Counsel Mr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶289

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶290

AND

¶291

l,4/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office at H.No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 50007 2 Represented by its Special Power of Attomey Holder: M/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands private Limited Having its office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶292

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, Sio. Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o. FIat No. 102, Dhanunlaya Nest. Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶293

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶294

CRPMP. NO: 6264 OF 2017

¶295

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all f urther proceedings in O.P.SR.No.2233 of 2010 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pending drsposal of the Revision Petition.

¶296

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶297

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUBAINA S. KHATOON

¶298

C.R.P.No.4812 of 2017

¶299

Petition under A rlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia. against the Order dated. 01 06-2016 passed in 1.A.No.3397 of 2015 in O.P.No.95 of 2010 on the frle of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabard

¶300

Between:

¶301

l,1/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known ers fu'l s Tt:ch I'.lahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No 115 36. Hr-tech Cily Layout. Survey No. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, Anrlhra Pratiesh 500 08 Rep. by. its Chief Corporate Counsel Mr. Sudhakar Konrpally

¶302

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶303

AND

¶304

Ir,4/s. Panctr ak,aly^{,rn i A.g ro-Fa rms Pvt. Ltd.,' Registere'ioffi:':; t H No EWS 1040'} tit if,r.", l(PHEi C,)lc;y,^{KukatpallyHyderabad - 50)Al2 Fl : rrer;ented by its} Special^pclve-o Attcrney^{Hc)lder [,'] s. Vtshwa.mttrr} _C^{recn Lr r(ls private Limited} H'iving its offi'e tt Flat^{Nir. 102, Dh.rnunlayaNest R rirv I''Jir; lr, '/.usufguda,} Hyderabac' - 5,0(^045.

¶305

Represented i-ry it:; Director^{tr,4 r. D V S Subba Raju,S to} L,i lr: D. Krrsltnam^Raju, aged about 44 vei rs, Occ:^{Di'ector. R/o. Flat No 1()2} Dlrir r u n'ay:r Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousuiguda Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁴⁵

¶306

F ES PCrN O El'lT/PETITIONER

¶307

CRP MP. NO: 6266 )l: 2017

¶308

Petition urrd rr Section 151^{CPC praying thati I th(i Iircurnstancesstated} in the affidav t fi ec^{irr support of th(r} lretrtion'^{the HrlllrocL rt nray be pleasedto} stay all further^{p,ro.;eedings in O.P No.95of 2010 or thef Llr: of the I Additional} chief Judge, cily )i ril cottrt^{SccLrnrierabad penrlrn} I^{(lr:ilri) ial of the Revision} Petition.

¶309

Counsel for the^Pe iitioner:^{SRI P. VENKAT REDDY}

¶310

Counsel for the Re sFondent:^{SRIRUSHEEK REDDY K V}

¶311

C.R.P.No.4813 of 2)17

¶312

Petitior- unde^. lfiicle 227 0f thr:^{constitution ol ln lia ar ;rinstthe orderdated.} 01-06-2016^{passeclin l.A.No.3',l 35 ol 2a15rn o P NO5 )9 ci ,l(t1l rn the file of the} Court of the I Adcit^r nal Chief^{Judge, C ty Crvrl Cor-rrl,S(:ilurro€r:lird.}

¶313

Between:

¶314

It4/s Satyarn Cor tp lter Serv ces^{L rrr te.l. (tror,vktro'.'rtas [,'1 s, T':c h N/]ahindra Ltd.)} having iis -ocal Clfice at Satyanr^{lrriolty. Ulrit - 1). Pn)l ll-35/36.Hi{echCity} Layou-t, Survey^N t. 64,^{l,'1adha1rLlr,R RDistrrr:t. Andh itPritdesh- 500 08} Rep.by its Chiel C:rporate Cotrnsr:^{l'1r Sudhakar Koml;:I} v

¶315

...PETITII)I.IEF /RESPONDENT

¶316

AND

¶317

It4/s. Panchaki:l'y tni Agro-Fair-:^{i) ' i'rl. Rr:q:st':.rc:.r'f:'lr.:tH No.EVVS 1040,} lll Phase, t(Pl-lB^{r]rlony, KLri<at.rrrl} i'.^{i l r,'iilra 1'racl - 50(i072 Fl : rrc:;t:nted by its} Special Por,ver o Attcrney^{t-'li )l.l} lr^{^.1} s^{',1r::lr'.rilnrilttC'elnI I rds private Limtted} Having rts tffir;e^rt Flat No^{I ^Q i,,'l rr rya Nr'siR rli' I'J;r I lr. 'ousttfguda,} Hyderabac - 50t 015

¶318

Represented by its Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o Late D Krishnam^Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o^{Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya} Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶319

,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶320

CRPMP. NO: 6267 OF 2017

¶321

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in O.P.No.509 of 201O on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^pending disposal of the Revision Petition.

¶322

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶323

Gounsel for the Respondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶324

C.R.P.No.4814 of 2017

¶325

Petition under A r,icle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated. 01-06-2016 passed in 1.A.No.3346 of 2015 in O.P.No 274 of 2010 on the file of^the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶326

Between:

¶327

M/s Satyam Computer Services Limited,^(now known as^N4/s Tech tvahindra Ltd.) having its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12. Plol No. 35/36, Hi{ech City Layout, Survey No. 64, N/adhapur, R. R. District. Andhra Pradesh - 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel Mr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶328

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶329

AND

¶330

M/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms P!'t. Ltd.,, Regrstered office at H.No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally. Hyderabad^- 500072 Represented by^its Special Power of Attorney Holder:^{lt4/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands private Limited} Having its office at Flat No. 102. DhanunJaya Nest. Raliv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶331

Represented by its Director Mr D.V.S. Subba^Raju S/o Late D. Krishnam Raju, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director. R/o Flat^No 102 Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶332

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶333

CRPMP. NO: 6268 )l'2017

¶334

Petiliof urrC rr Se:ction 15,] CPC^praying that i'r ttrer aircurnstances stated in the affidavri f rl rd^rn suppc rt of the^petrtion, the High Court l ay be^pleased stay all further^prot;r:r'di rqs in O P l,)o 274 of 2010 on the 'ile of tt-: I Additional Chief Judge, City C^{v I} Cr u t, Se:cunilr:rabad^pt:nding disposal of^{t rer} Rcvisiorr Pctttion

¶335

Counsel for the Pe it oner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶336

Counsel for the l?e;pondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶337

C.R.P.No.4815 01' 2^t17

¶338

Petit on urr,Ji: A rlicle 221 of the Constitution of lntiia, against he Order dated 28-04-2016 passcd n l.l,.No 3ll 15 al 2015 in O.P.No.3li6 of i'O 10 on ther file of the Court of thr: I l, lj,l t -^ri I C:hief Jrr,iqe. City Civil Court, Se,;underetrad

¶339

Between

¶340

M/s Satyanr^(,orr:rr te Ser-v ;..rs Lrrnited, (now known as ltl/r; l-eclr lVlal-lndra Ltrl ) having rts Lrr,.r:l^,)f1 c€, at S.tyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, PIot Nc. 35i36, Hi-tech City Layout, SL,rvi:y tr i4, iil,rclhapur, R.R. District, ,Andhr;r^Pr'alesh 500 0B Rep by. ts lllrrel^.lr rp:ratr: C':unsel Ir4 r Sudhakar Kompally

¶341

..PETITICINER/RESPONDENT

¶342

AND

¶343

It4/s Pa,rch,rk:rLy: rr Ac;ro-Farr.s Pvt. Lld.,, Registered office at H.l'lo.EWS 1040. lll Phase KPll3^t.ro orry, Kukatpally. Hyderabad - 500072 R,;p.esented by rts Sper:ial Pov'c: ol^'\1 or'rey -lolcler l\l/s. Vishwamitri Green L;tnls Jrrivate Limited Havrng rts oilrer: :1 .l.1:I la- No.^'1 i]2 Dhanunjaya Nest, Rayiv Narya', Ytusufguda, Hyderatrad 5a)0

¶344

Represente(l !; ,ts )r'ector llr D V.S Subba Raju, S/o. Lat: ). l(rishnam Ralu. aged about 1,1 vr:;u ; O;c Drrcctor Rio. Flat No. 102, Dhrrnun.jzya Nest, Raliv Nagar. Yousufr u(rir Iyler:rDir(l 500 045 ...RESPONI)E NT'PETITIONER

¶345

CRPMP. NO: 626€r CF 2017

¶346

Petit ln r^,,1t S r:r lron^{1 .1} CPC lrraying that in the c rcum;tances stated in the af fid l lri ' .rl i -Ltl)flo11 1)i il.1r I)elrlron. the High Oourt rni;y b3 pleased stay all furthi-.r^p: r,., - r -i-t s 1n Q F^r1,., .r lil oi 2010 on the file of tl)e I ACdilicnal Chrcf Judge. Oity i);' l(,ct.1 Sr:r:un,lrr.lilrri lrcnding disposal of th,; Rr,,vlsion Pr:tition

¶347

Counsel for th,: P,:ti icner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶348

Counsel for- th,: R,::; rondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K. V

¶349

C.R.P.No.4873 ol 20'17

¶350

Petition under Ad.icle 227 of the Constitutron of lndia, against the Order dated. 01-06-2016^passed in l.A No 3177 of 2015 in O.P.No 512 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶351

Between:

¶352

lvl/s Satyam Computer Services Limited, (now known as [/l/s Tech Mahindra Ltd.) havlng its Local Office at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12, Plot No. 35/36, Hi{ech City Layout, Survey No. 64, lvladhapur, R.R. District, Andhra Pradesh - 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief Corporate Counsel Mr. Sudhakar Kompally

¶353

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶354

AND

¶355

Itil/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms Pvt. Ltd.,, Registered office at H-No.EWS 1040, lll Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500072 Represented by its Special Power of Attorney Holder: M/s. Vishwamitri Green Lands^private Limited Havrng rts office at Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad^- 500 045.

¶356

Represented by rts Director tr/r. D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/o. Late D. Krishnam^Ralu, aged about 44 years, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Raiiv Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad - 500 045

¶357

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶358

CRPMP. NO: 6344 OF 2017

¶359

Petrtion under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased stay all further^proceedings in O.P.No.512 of 2010 on the file of the lAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^pending disposal of the Revision^Petition.

¶360

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶361

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. SIDDHARTH RAO

¶362

C.R.P.No.4874 of 2017

¶363

Petrtion undcr Af,.icle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Orde^r dated 01-06-2016^passe(l rn I A No 3133 of 2015 in O.P.No.508 of 2010^{on the file of the} Court of the I ndditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶364

Betwee n:

¶365

l\4/s Satyan Conlruter Services Limited, (now known as lV/t;^-l eclr ir,4altrndra Ltd.) having rts Lor:;rl⁽ )ff ce at Satyam lnfocity, Unit - 12,^,)lot N:. 35,36, H lr:r;h City Layout, Su'vi:'/ lo. 64, Madhapur, R.R. District, ,\nrlhrir^r-a lcsh 500 0E Rep by rts^lllr (jf )crporate Counsel l\4r. Sudhakar Ko.lpalll

¶366

Pt.TITIC N^{-R/RESPONDENT}

¶367

AND

¶368

lV/s. Panchirkir y,:.ri Agro-Farms P!,1. Ltd.,, Registered off c: zr.l-l t,lo E\i/S 10.10 lll Phasr:. K'rHlJ⁽ io ony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500)72 tl,-,:-esonted Lry ts Special Powr:r tf \tlorney Holder: M/s. Vishwamitri Green L;t^ Js; lrrrvatt: Iinrited Havng its o'frcr:;: Flat No.'102, Dhanunjaya Nest, Rariv Ni:r;r-. ytusufquda, Hyderabad 5C0 )4 5.

¶369

Represented tr,, ts I )ir-.cior tr/ r D.V.S. Subba Raju, S/r -at:^{J. l(rishnlr rn} Raju aged ahout 44 y€,ar,,, Occ: Director, R/o. Flat No. 10'.) lf h;r,r rnji ya Nr:st. Ralrv Nagar. Yousu[r;rr<1et. llyle.abad - 500 045

¶370

...RESPOIID EN T/PETITIONER

¶371

CRPMP NO: 6345 CF 2017

¶372

Petrtron :rn(ler Section 151 CPC praying that rn tho c r(;r.r I itallC(-.s :ttatod rn the alirdavrt Iiled I support of the petition, the High Cour rrzr,/ bc plr:l::cii tct stily all l'urllr(rr i)r()c( e(lings in O.P.No.508 of 201O on the. 1il- tl trr: r,irl tional Chrei Jr,dqr,. { ) ty O v Court, Secunderabad pend jng drr;[,c sr. i r.rf thr:^pr:vrs .i P etrt io n

¶373

Counselfor tht-, Peti ioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶374

Counsel for the Rr:s rondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K V

¶375

C.R.P.No.4875 of ?-O' 7

¶376

Pr;titjon L.nclr:r .',nicle 227 of the constitution of lndi l. iiga n:;t I e or, jrrr r]:rt'-.rj 01 C6 20111 i)as:ec rr I A.No.3101 of 2015 in O.P.No.2Ztr oi i,.( .t lr th,: Ir i: r)f the Cou( rf 'he i Ar rj ticn,rl Chief Judqe, City Civil Court, SecLrnderair c

¶377

Be tw ee r.r

¶378

1.1 s S,:rty,tnr tollrl] ltor t3ervices Limited, (now known::s tr.l : '^. lI^{lt.'latrrrrrllr} Li,^I ir:r,.rr ; t: L,r :irl C)'r e at Satyam lnfocity, Unit -^.12 F ll l'.;i, '.jrlia fj 1L'jlr (.i:.

¶379

Lar,r.-r:,. liirr.,)r l,l I 6.1, I\4adhapur, R.R. Distrrct A rclirr.: :'r:ttt :slr :ri^(t 1,:l rieir l', ,;,,^(. ,r,r (- rrtorate Cot_rnsel IVr. Sudhakar Kon p::1.,.

¶380

PE TITIOII!-R/F ESPONDENT

¶381

AND

¶382

fi,4i s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms^{Pvt. Ltd.,, Registeredoffice at H No EWS 1040'} lll^phase, KpHti colony, Kukatpally,^{Hyderabad - 5ooo72 Represented by its} Sp".LiFo*",- of Attorriey^{Hold'er: ful/s.'Vishwamitri} -Green^{Lands private Limited} Having its office at Flat Nb. 102,^{Dhanunjaya Nest, Raliv Nagar' Yousufguda,} Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶383

Represented by its^{Director Mr. D.V.S. Subba Raiu, S/o. Late D KrishnamRaju,} aged about 44^{years, Occ:Director, R/o. Flat No. 102, Dhanuniaya Nest Rajiv} Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad -^{500 045}

¶384

...RESPON DENT/PETITIONER

¶385

CRPMP. NO: 6346 OF 2017

¶386

Petition under section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courlnray be pleasedto} stay all further^{proceedings in o.P.No.278of 2O1Oon the file of the I Additional} chief Judge, City civil^{court, Secunderabadpending disposal of the Revision} Petition.

¶387

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIP. VENKAT REDDY}

¶388

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI K. SIDDHARTHRAO}

¶389

C.R P.No.4878 of 2017

¶390

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the^{constitution of lndia,agarnst the orderdated} 15-06 2016^passed in^{1.A.No.3265 of 2015in o.P.SR.No.5019of 2010 on thc file of} the Court of the^I Additional^{Chief Judge, City CivilCourt, Secundcrabad}

¶391

Between:

¶392

I,4/s Satvam Comouter Services^{Limited, (now known astr"4/s Techl'4ahindra Ltd')} r.,r"i^q ii, foirr o6c" at satyam^{lnfocity,unit - 12 ptor No 3f.i 30. Hr-techcrty} l"v"tir^'srr"Lv tto. oa,^{Ma-dhapur,R.iR District..AndhraPritdesh500 08} Rep.try. its Chiaf Corporate^{CounselMr. Sudhakar Kompally}

¶393

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶394

AND

¶395

l\4/s. Panchakalyani Agro-Farms^{Pvt. Ltd.,, Regrsteredojfice} 'rt H No EWS 1040 rii^prroi". xpud Coloiy,^{Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072 Re;rrcsc'rtcil by rts} i,,,,c,',,i Power of Attorriev^{Hoto'er:Mls.'vishwamilttGrecr I r'rcls1'rtv tre Ltnttted} ul u,,,; 'ts oruice at Flat Nb.^{'102,Dhanunjaya Nest. Ralrv Nat;arYousu[r;uc!a'} HyCcrabad^- 500 045.

¶396

Represented by it; l)irector IrIr. D.V.S Subba Raju SK L:r1 I f Krisrhnam Ra1u, aged about 44 ye ats, Occ: Director. Rto. Flirt No. o') I h:rrrLrr]aya Nest, Rajiv Nagar, YousufgLrdz, Ilyrlerabad 500 045

¶397

RESPIJI.IDE NT/PETITIONER

¶398

CRPMP. NO 6349 0F 2017

¶399

Petition unc r:r section 151 cpc prayinq that n rire r r.umstances stated ln the affidavit filec in support of the pc:t t on. tlre Higl c rLirl r ray i;e pleased stay all further proceed nr;s in o.P.SR.No 5019 ol 2o1o on t rc f l-' o the I Additional chief Judge, city 3 vil court, Securrrj.r.rbad pendir g 1is r.s,:l of ther Revision Petitio n.

¶400

Counsel for the Pr titioner: SRI p. VENKAT REDDy

¶401

Counsel for the Re spondent: SRI RUSHEEK REDDy K.V

¶402

C.R.P.No.4889 ot 2J17

¶403

Petitior unde^' lfiicle 227 of the Clrrslrrutr:rr of In rr:r ac a rr;r the order dated. 15-06-2016 passed in 1A.No.3217 of z01it ir o.p.SR.N t )2r(t r f 2o1o on the file of the court of the I Ac iitional chief Judge oity civrl courl s.cu-.erabac

¶404

Betwee n

¶405

[,4/s Satyam Ctn ptrter Services Limrtr:r] (norn', known a:; Nl/s -r:c I l,tiahindra Ltd.) having its [-oc;al )f ict: at Satyam In|).]rty. Unrt^.j 2, plr t ho lr5^'36, Hr-tech Citv Layout, Survey (). 64, Madhapur. tt'R Drstr c[. \n, ji,r: Pr rdesh - 500 08 Rep.by. its Chief 3orporate Counse I l,.tr Slrdlr;rk-rr KL ltr at t,,

¶406

..PETITI(IN ER, RESPONDENT

¶407

AND

¶408

M/s. Panchakalyz ni Altro-Farrns pvt i r(i . Rc,ristered .f r r;c ;rr r-.i.l,lo.EWS 1040, lll Phase. XPHB.T )olony, Kukatpally. lt,i tr:rab;ri j - 500 )7;, Il:i,-e,s,:,iieJ fry iii^- Specral Povr'er of \t'orney Horder: l\L s Vishw:rrrrtri Greerr * r. rs Irrivate limlted Having its offic,: : I t,lat Nb. 102. DharL;rr1:iy,, Lr"ii. n11iu ,.,1.: yrusriqrJa,'"" Hyderabad - 5t)0 )45.

¶409

Represented by its )irector Ii.4 r D V S -. rr.-r;r Fi:r,Lr S r _irt: L(rishrram Raju, aged about 44 yetat,,. O :c. Drr, ,, lor Ii i i r. N ':J ),t. ' rrrl; ; r Nest Rajiv Nagar, Yousufguda, llyle.abad 500 tr,r.,

¶410

RE SFOII LTEN T/PETITIONER

¶411

CRPMP. NO: 6358 OF 2017

¶412

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings in O.P.SRNo.2210 of 2O1O on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the Revtsion Petition.

¶413

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VENKAT REDDY

¶414

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI RUBAINA S. KHATOON

¶415

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶416

1 ilt. il()\ ot R \Bt.t. sl{t .rt \ I'lcE ,.s.\'tHOSII RIaDDY

¶417

( .ll. '. \o-t..Jli(l{. Jr<'. -l=()(.} t7,-6 -178-l 1i 36Jr87, {795 1196.1791). -ltt03. 1r,3[ l],!.^{1-()0. J''91. l-()1.-lf 9-l} -1ll(i< 1,3 !!.lxll'l_tr!!l!.1!lllll_u_!_1L_l! 1813 l.8 lr, {r,t1s. {ti-.1. ls-1.^{_ti,i-5. _1878} .t Jli89 0t 201''

¶418

( o\t\l()\ ()til)t.tt:

¶419

lt t. rl. \-i. ,^,,,lr..tl in tltcst r..r i:it,n; s one an(l tllf \ilf l( ira lr.'ii1'tti'p,,'.'tl ol br t]tis ccirrtn()n,.)rcl('t ''^ll-L i 'rncrl corrnsc 1b:' trtc IIL-Iitional rlr.lr⁽ i iirsnrsscti ir'. this⁽ -rrrri b,, orclcr .i.it,r.i I^,'t I 'lr, .,lr,i i lr'\ isl()lts lfa s(lLla e \ co\ el'(,(l lr\ llri .rlrl^,r, '' i .,iliri,I i,, ir , i()r-tltc petit oner. {il tht.r subntits i'.1 ,..(l ln tlrcs' rei's oit: aiso l-.r \ lae (,1(i I iiris^('oult in plLlaqr.iph l5 ol (r1(i. i ' i rt,,{.lr (i ,)i\sar'\ lttiotr: tc:rcj is Un(lcl'" rq re:orded t y the r ;, I CDu( ,l_ ::t ', t.l : ri the oflgrnal order relar(ltng r,,rscr before he triel .)ou 1 rs ...irer n a separate al)D cat on I^rr.ta lr, , r lhe tr at Cor- rt is d recte(l to i. aiiiL i '^{l /of ihe preSentati(),.tof the} :l1ta'': vr' tl.to rt ea',c cf the : .i;" al apl)rop ate Stsqe

¶420

\ I

¶421

I-ca|nccl col[](-l lirI tltc tc:Ion,-lcnts sLtriccl no ob.jection ior disposal ol' the se lcr isions in tct nts ol thc o:dcr datcd 111.09.10 1(r ancl thc abor c llrrdinqs

¶422

:1. In \ i!'\ ol' tlre. re.llr'cscntlition ol- lcarncd counsel lbl th.. petil.ionJr'\ lrnrl :i: ircccclctl to br learn:d counsel fbr tlic lesl)ond c n ts, tltcsc cir il l.cV rs Ion petitions ale disrnissed with thc lirllorr inl olrscrr al iolrs

¶423

The f ndrng r-.corded bV the trial Court in the orgrna orders regardrng presentatton by oroper person before the tnal Courl rs hereby set as:a:r However, in a separate app rcatror'r rf flled by the petrtioner, the trral Corrrt rs drrected to decide the maintainabrlity of the presentation of the plarnt by an authorized agent, wrthout eave of the Coud rn accordance with law at appropnate stag e

¶424

lhcrc shall bt no orclcl ls to c()sLs

¶425

l. 'lise .'llurrcirrrr .rpplicutions. i1' anv pending, shall stand

¶426

closccl

¶427

Sd/. MOHD. ISM IL ASSISTANT REGIST, AR

,TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The I Addrtional Chiet Judge, City^{Civil Court, Secunderabad}

¶433

One CC to SRI P. VENKAT REDDY,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶434

One CC to SRI RUSHEEK REDDY K^{V. Advocate} IOPUC]

¶435

One CC to SRI K SIDDHARTH^{RAO, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶436

Two CD Copies

klrrrr r'r--^{^}

HIGH COUR"

DATED:01 lt\itl,2023

COMMON OFIDER

_:'- --.2' .1itf!: == al.-1-
'
k o o, q a.
,. o
I 3 l,uI I
*
,i'i)

¶442

C.R.P. Nos 4757 4769 4776 4783 4786 I .7_31 478 4789 4790 4791 47 9: - 4794 4795 4796 4799 4803 1805. 4806 4807 4808 4809 4UA,^,1812. 4813. 4814, 4815. 4873.11,1+.:1875 4B7B & 4889 of 2017

¶443

THESE CIVIL R.EVISION PETITIONS

¶444

ARE D]SMISS E:D

¶445

,l
l-:

¶446

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶447

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3414 of 2O16

¶448

ORDER:

¶449

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of lh,e Constitution of India is filed challenging the Order dt.16.03.2016 in LA.No.3319 of 2015 in O.P.No.277 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby the petition filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity 'CPC') was allowed granting leave to amend the plaint, as claimcd in the Petition.

¶450

The respondent herein flled O.P.No.277 of 20lO ( in forma pauperis) seeking recovery of Rs.57,19,75,000/and later he found certain clerical or typographical errors in the plaint with regard to calculation and dates of registered correspondence between the parties and therefore to rectify those clerical or typoq:3phical

¶451

) Ll5 M,l

¶452

CR⁾ lr:1,1 2(^r15

¶453

m st;rk,rs petitioner sought leave of thc Co--t io anrend the pla nt in Pauper O.P.No.2l7 of 2010.

¶454

Tl re r-espondent therein/revrsicn p(,, ':ioner filed Ccunte denyirrg material allegationl, rn tl e affidavit, inter al a contending that the petition iled u- Cer Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is not maintainable anc' the y irrte rded the propcs€ d arnendment only to improv: the 11r:.dings tn tht: sui. and alter the basis thereo . I ltr: Jrroposed amendr rent of cause title as sought for b,y tl petitioner is unteratrle. The amendment at para \lo.ll :i, VIII (B) and (C) o'the plarnt, Va uation declari,d for tre purpose of Courl f:e at paras (l1l) 15 ald i;ar r-'lt ,t' tl e plaint ancl dat:^jn para No.4 of the pla n'L rrr I ;t r;L,alrfy AS typogral,h cal error. Furthcr, ttrc p a rt ff t, trying to amend he plaint under the d s!JUrse o: tl^.rographical error w tir:h iS a dishOnest clfort li) :Ur(t t,; aross neglig{ln:e. Similarly, the 'date' oi trarsa:tio- r annot be perxitte J to chanqe in tnc plarnt as it cr;ul: no within the antb [,tf pleadrngs unC(,r aJrc(]- Vj ['r]i: _ ri ( pC and

M S I,1,]

cRP 3414 2016

also raised other contentions including maintainability of the application at fhe stage of the enquiry under Order XXXIII Rule 6 of CPC while praying for dismissal of the application.

¶459

The trial Court, upon hearing both the counsel, granted leave to amend the plaint, assrgning its own reasons, relying on a judgment of Apex Court reported in M/S. Revajeetu Builders & Developers V. M/S. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors (2OO9 (1O) SCC 84) and other^judgments.

¶460

Aggrieved by the Order of the trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent therein/revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged before the trial Court in the Counter and mainly contended that the respondent herein failed to obtain permission from the Court to present the plaint by its agent, as required under Order XXXIII Rule 3 of CPC, and that the proposed amcndment would alter the basic structure of the suit; it is only with an intention to

¶461

N/l S M,l

¶462

¶463

(R) 11 1.i l l6 irt'^pr rtt'^r ttrc plaintiff's^{plcading; trat1h Ilroposed} ar.lencl T(ln:^wou d^{take awaythe valrlablr: rlght accrued} lo l re e';tsion^{pctitioner and prayedtc) allowthe} R<:vr: io r PCtttion by^{scltinq aside th(-- Orcer plssedby} th. trii Court vrrrlc^{d tsm rssing I.A. N o.33 9 of 2015in} O,P.llcr 2)-7 of )-0lO

¶464

tr rr nr; hearing, Sri S.^{Ravi, lienio'Co lnseon} be h,r I oi Slri Shir cen^{Seihna Baria.app€ar ing for the} Te!'r,, or )etttlone-,^{marrrll' contendedthatt le Order of} th: .^-i 'l C ourt^{!spr(,rr.ltureand irtth sst,lge, the} prlpos('d arme.Crncnl⁽ annot be^{permitt(lda ldapart} f ronr tl ,r1 lhe^I esponclcrrt^{herein did lloto lt ain leave of} th:r L.or rt lil^pres(trrl thc^{plaint through an lcenl: seeking} to r.Ui in fo-r.r.: iraitireris and unless^{the error in} pr-,s(:r'r1 nq the pilltrt s rot rectified, at ttlis^{stage, the} pTrl)os(,c a ner-,dnlr:r'ti carrnot be allowed.^{He also further} cont€,n( ei hat [hr: etrors^{pointed out in the pel:itionare} n€ lir:r' r^r:r cal n'lr lyp!rLtraphical^{errors an(l the plaint} Ca il i^(-,i l. e pcrn-lii,'o t.l Lle^{amendt:darrd hr: placed}

¶465

M5M,,l

¶466

¶467

cRP_3414_2016 relia nce on a^judgment of Apex Court reported in J. Samuel and others v Gattu Mahesh and others', wherein the Apex Court elaborated the word Typographical mistake while considering an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to grant leave to amend the^pleadings or not. On the strength of the principle laid down in J. Samuel's case, the errors to be amended by the proposed amendment cannot be construed as typographical mistake and the respondent herein cannot be^permitted to carry out such amendment since it would alter the nature of the suit and^prayed to set aside the Order under challenge.

¶468

Whereas, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy appearing on behalf of Sri Rusheek Reddy K.V, the learned counsel for respondent, supported the Order in all respects whlle contending that the scope of enquiry in a petitlon filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is limited and the very presentation oF the suit as in forma pau peris under

(20t1)-) !aa lr1,l

t,"4sAr1,l

. iil r-. i ,)016

Order XXXIII Rr.:le 3 of the CPC cannot bc :lerc ded rn the ')r(, je rt enqurry and that the proposi:d arTe'trlrrent r,^rould roi (. ancre or alter the natUre Of the :;rri. aId, c,n the c'-lrrrr h rnd, the claim is reduced tc thre: crr rcs n the ci.rrn.r approxlnately and that it would not t lK( arvay the v,.] r al le right that accrued to the revis:c n pctitjoncr or .:rir-ri:;, on made in the pleadings. On t rc other hand, l- o! e rri:itakes in referring the rlates rn regi:,lered . )l et; )(,ndence is only typographical er-or and [urnishing .r' lrt ,lr details or particUlarS fOr apprecia: orr r,f farts by lr'r' Cc trt. He further contended that there, s no []ar to rr Ir f 1 rir] an application under Order Vt F Lt c 7 ot CpC r.,('rr⁽ u ing pendency of enquily of in pa _1 cr Op Lrnder (.,i clt,r- l(l(XIII Rule 6 of CPC and pr;ryed t:, :lr;mrs,, the i( ,, ! o r petition. Learned cour se I f tr TLr,, rslon p|t :ic re,./rlefendant drawn the atten- ion c f iI:, Corrrt to a lUC,nrert reported in Revajeetu Ituitcters and Develrtpers v Narayanaswamy ana' scns and ol her.5 , vrhei-ein the Apex Court latd ,t ).i, I (_cr-ialn

MSM,]

cRP 34r4 2016

guidelines to consider an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to grant leave to amend the pleadings

¶478

B. Considering rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, including the Order under challenge, the point that arise for consideration is :

¶479

" Whether the proposed amendment would alter or change the nature of the claim, takes away the valuable right that accrued to the revision petitioner or any admission made in the pleadings or causes any prejudice to the revision petitioner, if the present petition is allowed, if so, whether leave granted by the trial Court be set aside ?

¶480

IN RE POINT: Undisputedly, the respondent herein filed suit for recovery of Rs.57,19,75,000/- as in forma pauperles under Order XXXIII of CPC in the year 2015 and the enquiry to grant leave to the petitioner/ respondent herein to sue as in forma pauperics ts slill going on even after a year. The plaint presented bcfore I

¶481

8 lvlSM,I

¶482

( Rl 3,11,1 ,1016 Addit or a Chief ludge, City Civil CoL;rt, St'i un lerabad, thoucrh rt is under Order XXXIII of CPC r,c.r k ng leave of thr: ilr:.rrt to sue in fornta paupe i(',, '.ir practical purpc)s( s, it is a suit, in view of Sectr,rn 13 cf L mitation Ac-. Tl erefore, the petitioner present( d l lre p: la It before the tria C.ourt is pleadinq within the meairrr(l of Crder VI Rule t r f CPC, such plaint can be amer dcd ,trrd (tave can be gran -ed to amend the plaint, sub;e t 6 -;,115,ying the requirer re:nt for consideration of applr .rtrr r^,, f le d under Orrier VI Rule 17 of CPC, r.e., the pro:)o,(,( :irnr]ndment shall nt t change the natur e of the -. rri; -'r I [,roposed an-endr rent shall not tal(c away thc ',.r r,tlr .: r ight lhat acc.rur:d to the respondent therein and tr- nr^. : or, if .rny, trade t y the p aintiff and rt shc,,t I 'r-r caLlse any pre,judic:, which cannot be compcn:atr:rl I t:rms of mcne/, a 1d that the proposed Jnren( rl lr, ,v-.Ltld bc a fresh st it if barred by limitation on t rL s..r c r ause: of action, t hr: amendment cdnnot be allor,,"i:rl

MSM,-I

cRP 3414 2015

The proposed amendment rs as follows:

¶487

a. At page No.1, description of the suit: the amount of Rs.57,19,75,000/- mentioned in descriptlon of the suit is to be changed to Rs.54,19,75,000/-

¶488

b. The table at page No.3, Para III (4) may be replaced by the following table:

¶489

DATE	CHEQUE NO	TRANSCATION DATE	BANIK	AtvlOUNT
29.01.08	099726	31!10B	HDFC	60000000
29.01.08	o99727	31.01.08	HDFC	60000000
29.01.08	099728	31.01.08	HDFC	60000000
21.O2.08	099729	28.02.08	HDIC	000_ 54000
27.02.0A	099730	28.02.08	tDFC I	000 s6qq0
27.02.04	099737	28.02 .08	HDFC	.+0000000
08.05_08	099733	09.05.08	HDFC	20000000
24.5.08	099t34	26 .05.08	HDFC	50000000 400000000

¶490

c. At page No.3, para (ll1) 7, Line NO.2: thc words^' notice dated 04.08.2009'is to be changed to'notice dated 05.08.09'.

¶491

d. At page No.4, para (III) 7 ( contrnuation), line NO.7: the Words' notlce dated 04.08.2009' is to be chanqed to ' notlce dated 05.08.09'.

¶492

e. At page No.5, para (III) 13, line No.11: the total amount claimed is to be changed from 'Rs.57,19,75,000/-' to Rs.54,19,75,000/r-

¶493

f. At page No.6, para (III) 15, lrne No.1: the v.rlLiatron of the suit is to be changed from'Rs.57,19,75,000/^' to Rs.51,'iq,75,000/-

¶494

¶495

MSlrl,J CRP 3,114.,C L6

¶496

g. t, Iage^{No.6, para (lll)15, rne No.2andL ne No.9:the} Corrrt fe payablc ; to be changed trom 'Rs.57,.12,i.276/: to 'Rs 5.+.2, t76/.

¶497

i. r,t i a{lc No.7, para V ,^{Lrnc NO.10,the v.'ords' orr 0r..08.2009'} rs to br i.ranged to^'Jn 05 08.2009'

¶498

J. r\t rage No. /, para VI, l.ine NO.8, the ,!'ords^'icgal notice dt 04.08.2019'is to be rhanged to'Legal Notice Ct. 05 Oti.2009'.

¶499

k.^qt )age No.8, para VII, line No.1, the'.,aluatiln of the suit is to lle cha n. cd from'P.s.54, 1 9,1 5,000/

¶500

l. Lt arli: No.t, par.: ViI, rne No.l, the Court F:er pa,rable is to be chanr r.l frrm^' il.s. , / ,Z),2 )6 t ta't]:,.54,2,',716/^.'.

¶501

rn. At p,rg(r No.B, l.rra VIi (tl), thc amoun' of R.s. 5^z, 1!t,75,000/is to rc :hanoed to'Rs.54.19,75.000/-'.

¶502

n. {t ):r_a e No .8, F'ar.r VIii i , the ilmount of 'Rs.5 ;,19,75,000/-' is to bl. )a nged to'Rs.54_ 1 9,75,000/-'.

¶503

O T1r ainend trc nanrc cf the defendant irl the cat.se l.itle of the paitt'rtnl

¶504

l'1/r; : lt,,arn Ccrrputer Se rvrr,:: Linrited, t'la y i. rt ir,rde^(-entre, S.ir ti336, S(t.under,tbad, To M/:; l: rt /a nr Ccnlputcr So.vi..: Iinriled, No,r,^t .rr rg,rd rn to |v17,; t rc r l.'la h rnd r,r Llm i[el, Vrd e^r )r(lers dt. 11.06.201.i p.ssec by the Hon'ble lli.h -cul of Anchra PraCi:slr In aP No.123 of 2(.72 having its reg st€,r(l . :,ttrce al, Ga cr .r', Eu d n!, Apc l ll, r.r ,,r , iiumbar 400lll) 1 Rr -.^-- ,, fs l\utl,Jr tcrl Sira,ra:it ,,

MSM,J

cRP 3414_2C16

The reason for seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint is a mere clerical or typographical error, which were crept in the plaint, which requires to be rectified for appreciation of facts and in page 3 paras 3 and 4 are only furnishing better particulars. None of the proposed amendments would change the nature of the suit and would not take away the valuable right, if any, that accrued to the respondent/revision petitioner since the revision petitioner had not filed his written Statement before the trial Court and he will have an opportunity to meet the allegations, if any made. On the other hand, the proposed amendment in the claim is reduced to an extent of approximately three crores. The reduction of claim would not cause any prejudice to the respondent, if any decree is passed fixing Iiability on respondent. The other amendments regarding change in the date in para 3, para (III) 7, line No.2, Notice date was mentioned as 4.08.2009 instead of^,5.08.2009,. Similarly, at page No.4 para (III) 7 , line No.7, Notice date was mentioned 4.08.2009 insread of 05.08.2009 and it is only

¶509

¶510

[]: l.,l i

¶511

ar ' l/ 1.1 2:rt6 tyi)o(j|i pri(:al mistake. Further, at page N,r. i at para III (l 3) a rd at page 6 para III (15), the c ; inr amount is vi/r lirq'^, rnentioned as Rs.57,19,75,000r - lnstead of R: 5.1, 9 7:;,000/- and at page B para 7 il:i,^/el as lage B p;r: lJ (b) and (c), the Figures Rs.5r',19 75,C0A/wr^-:ngr ' rnentioned instead of Rs.54,19,75,()00/-

¶512

1.: Lra^-n,--d counsel for revision petitiont:r/clefendant cor:r:r led that those mistakes cann()t be r.onr;trued as t'/.orrr; p rir.al errors, placing reliance on .t . r-dJmeni of Al,.:x⁽ o r11, reported in J, Samuel's case reierred lo surlr-.r/ 'herein the Apex court held that the :erm T''. i).11 rrphi:al error is defined as a mistakr: raCe in the prr^.r.,:d't,i p3d material during printing/typir,l pro(,ess r i.r n. ncludes errors due to mechanir:;tl latlure or s ;;: of tlre hand or finger, but usually exclur.les errors of q rord- r:e:. Therefore, the act of neglecting tr: pe,rforrn an arcl^{(,.'l ,vl} rcr one has an obligation to do canrrot be c.ailed .-l !, rl ',,;rocraphica erroT

¶513

I\4SM,I

¶514

cRP_3414_2016

¶515

Similarly, in the same^judgment, the^{Apex Court} while dealing with an application under Order 6^{Rule 17} of CPC held that the^petitioner is able to^{establish that} despite exercising due diligence, the^{mistakescould not} have avoided and held that due diligence^{is the idea that} reasonable investigation is necessary before^certainkinds of relief are requested. Due diligent^{efforts are} requirement for a party seeking to use the^adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An^advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence^to determine that the representations made are^factually accurate and sufficient. The term^{'Due diligence'is} specifically used in the Code so as to^provide a^{test for} determining whether to exercise the discretionⁱⁿ situations of requested amendment after^the commencement of trial. A party requesting a^relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due dilagencc and is a requirement which cannot be^dispensed with.

¶516

¶517

l\l I f\4 l

¶518

clrt i.111 .'r 1e 15 In the present facts and circumstanc:s !) it-e case, the su it VA S filed acout 5 years ago, bt t thc.r r-lst.rkcs {cre nol- ce:d only during enquiry to grart e,l .,i lo sue as ir-t fitrnta pauperies and the mistake ir rrt:r. on nq the IS date cf legal correspondence pure ly 11 1r rqr aphical mistak(l ;irrce the date is typed as '4' in,;te.'rl o'^'5' in various plras, referred to supra. There ore, .-e rlstake is only a t)'pographical mistake, as def|re,J 1,, lh: Ap:x Cour-t ilr ! iamuel's case

¶519

The crther proposed amendment: lo⁽ cu -L- the c ainr c,f :he plaintiff and it is on y dr., t.) lisiake n calculatlo r, that can be constructed as cle,r r,r^'r stake Ever o:h rr,,vise, such reduction of the tl.ir' .itL 1d not l take arnra" the valuable right that accrucd io |,lvtston petitioner On the other hand, it reduc^,s tir,' tlti clation of the rer is on petitioner, if any decree L [-as ,( d . qalnst him. Tlrer ef ore, the proposed amcndm( ni or the plaint raroull not clange the naturc of thc sl,i ,:rc 'r^'u, 1, r.i nrt! take aiva y the valuable rrqht ti'at ic( i ,l , i1 tlt(l

¶520

¶521

MSM,I

¶522

cRP 3414 2016 respondent therein or admission, if any, made in the pleadings. On the other hand, it reduces the liability of the respondent therein incase the amendment is allowed and other amendment is only furnishing of better particulars. Therefore, such amendments can be allowed, subject to proof of exercise of due diligence, as held in Samuel's case, referred to supra.

¶523

In the present case, the cause shown by the petitioner/respo nd e nt herein is that while the employees of the petitioner were recently reviewing the various cases filed by the petitioner, it was realized that there are certain inadvertent errors/typographical mistakes which have crept in during the drafting of the plaint. The said errors/mistakes came to the knowledge of the petitio ner/ pla intiff only when subsequent review of the case was being done by its employees for the purpose of collecting necessary evidence to be led in the matter

¶524

Recently while reviewing the various cases, it was realized that there are certain inadvertent errors i,c

¶525

¶526

l/SM,]

¶527

CRI' 3z 1,1 2( 16 tyDo(lri^p ri(.al or clerical were crcpt^{ilr the plaint.As on} todav,^1-1" e^petitic,n is not registered AS :;u l, s in ce, the pe upe' ernquiry under Order XXXIII Rule^t:r of CPC is gcrrnq ( n beforr: the trial Court and findinc ;t.ch mistakes oT erro s in the^plaint \/hile reviewing^variotlssu ts,^{it can} safely crncluded that the revistorr^pe-it on3r^could e>:err:is,: due diligence to amend the^{plaint.---herefore, in} vi3w o' ,he^princ:iple laid dourn in Samu,-'l s^r:ase, the propls:c amend'nents calr be alloued at th(l present stage e alrnost a pre-registration itage of tlte^plaint. E/en c . herwise, Lhc Apex Court in Revajeel.u lluilder's ccrse,^.efe.rcd ta above, and in Ramestr llumar v

¶528

Rajma la Exports Private Limited and othersr, the

¶529

guid,-.li res laid dorvn in Revajeetu Builde:r's case were

¶530

re.itera.el and held as follor"rs

¶531

'' )r.t't(oll,, at oiytoq boti' ih.: E,..ti,\i) Lrtij lttlior cq:cs, sonte bostc .)r t riI les .t]1!'tl. ,,,hicn oaghi lJ r.' aok.n n,o ccnstlzrotial while 'lIl(,.l,tq or IelLatt'tq tlte opair:oitott in!'a)tt)anont nt:

¶532

/l.t l\rhctit.t ihr o ct1.ltr,-,j! totqhL t, iipetotive Jd protr.er ond .:l,i:.lr,,c 'tdlLtt) to't )i lf tn.: .1,.,' ; t,)l 1/t i.ll)a:. !li: a) .ia, tLJt)a)| t :t r-r).r./)iri|..:ri t,. ttt; t ftlt cr t olo fide;

il ) r\Ll I l:i,

MS[I,]

cRP_3414_2016

(3) the omendment \hould nol couse such pre)udice to the other side which connot bc compet6otrd ?dcquotely n terms of money;

¶538

(4) relusinq ornendmant vtould in foct leod to injustice or leod to multiple litigotlon ;

¶539

(5) whether the proposcd omeodnent constitutionolly or fundomentally chonges the notLtre ond chorocttr of the cose; ond

¶540

(6) os o gencrol rule, tl)c Cou.t should decline omendments if o fresh sutt on the omendad clorrns woold be borrcd by limitotion on the dote of opplicotion. These orc sotne ol tlle impottont foctors which moy be kept in mind while deolrne wirh opplicotion filed under Otder Vl Rule 17. These ote tllustrotive ond not exhoustive"-

¶541

From the law declared by Apex Court, it is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter oF right under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should bc thc general rule particularly, in

I ! !1,

lli^r.1 ..i ll15

ca )C'r ^ r(:r(l the other Side Can be ConrpenS.i:ed with co',l',^t' or mally, amendments are allowr:rl n the jl €.lrl ,' ;s L.c avord multiplicity of litigat ons.'

¶546

2A I'r(^qpcx Court further held that ar^(t rdrlent ap r1 r.rI c r te filerl immediately after filing sl t i.e., lrelorc r,]rnrnencernent of trial. If the petit.irtners are abli' lr, .)r lvc oT explain aS to how they failed to -ake s[e ).. .'1o c the trial is commenced jes pite cx('rr^.. i c cue dilrgence, the Court can al o,rr :;uct-t amt:r',lrr c rt The factum of exercising duel rliligernce l21r;,^'.r5 t.it()n circUmstances

¶547

t1 ir:,, the petition at pre-trial stage ,. rd at ihis ' i.r .( , :^-r posed .:mendment can be allow:c , Lrut posl tria . l),f Dlsccl anrendme nt cannot be pernti.tec except ,'ilrr i' -rr' Petitioner is able tO shour --,at dCSI)ttc ( .^-,1 d re dilqence, steps could not b(tern takcn io I fl1, rr: ra plaint

MSM,I

cRP 3414 2016

In Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu

¶552

and othersa, the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the situation while deciding a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC and held that if the proposed amendment to include relief of declaration of title, in addition to permanent injunction, was to protect their interest and not to change basic nature of suit as alleged. All amendments which were necessary for purpose of determining rea I^questions ln controversy between parties should be allowed if it did not change basic nature of suit. Change in nature of relief claimed should not be considered as change in nature of suit and power of amendment should be exercised in larger interest of doing full and complete^justice between parties.. It^is further held that amendment petitions shall be allowed if granting of an amendment really sub-serves ultimate cause of^justice and avoids further litigation.

' (20t2) r 5i ( ::

M: t"4

cR., 3r 1,1 2t 16 2-. A similar view is expressed by the ti.rcx Court in

¶557

Alkapt rt Cooperative Housing Societt, Lirlited v. Jayanlibhai Naginbhai (deceased) through L.Rs.,

¶558

whereir -he Apex Court held that wtrerr arncn(lment of p ainl- s oLight to have effect of alterinrl bas r. sir.lcture of th: sui , such amendment is impermissible. Ur t, in the pr:sernl case, the claim of the plaintif: is, 1t.: u.€ d to an exterrt of three crores approximately a1d il r,"olld not change c,r alter the nature of the ,;ui- C;:r.r to deny amerdrr€:nt by applying the princille l:ll Joinrl in Alkapuri's case.

¶559

O I overall consideration of the rna:c,ri: orr record, it is evi .lent that the proposed amendrrent ...r.rliirj no raray affect t te rights of the respondent/re,iis on i et _ioner at this sta re and the revision petitioner c(rn c(t^-..jr-r y detend hirrself' fi ing Written Statement after rer;is :-rr; the Op as su t rnd such amendment, cn the o he r ir : r,l, redr-tces th<: clai'n of the respondent in the I ar]t, I (.rse anV

:r 2|l!l 1) 1( 48

\45M.J

cRP 3414 2016 decree is passed against^{him, and the respondent therein} would furnish better particulars,^{which are helpfulto} adjudicate the lis between the^{parties effectively.} Therefore, I find no illegality^{in the order passed by the} trial Court in^granting leave^{to amend the plaint.}

¶564

One of the major^{contentions raised before this} Court is that at the stage of^{Order XXXIII Rule6 of CPC,} amendment cannot be allowed,^{but such question cannot} be examined, while deciding a^{petition under OrderVI} Rule 17 of CPC since^{its scope is limited to grant leave or} not and^presentation of the^{plaint by a propcrperson} cannot be decided.^{However,it is open to the revision} petitioner to move appropriate application^{before I} Additional Chief Judge, City^{Civil Court, Secunderabad,if} he intends to challenge the^{very presentationof the} plaint by an agent of the^{petitioner/plaintiff before the} trial Court. Hence, this Court^{need not examine} maintainability of the^{petition filed under Order XXXIIIof} CPC at the stage of^{enquiry in a pctition filed under Ordcr}

¶565

))

¶566

[/] ) N,l,.1

¶567

CtiP I111 7)1( X^(X.II Rule 17 of CPC. But, the trial (_orrrt rlrd rot accept tl- e cr n -er.'rtior.r of the revision petitioa: r a bout the mair t,: nability of prcsentation of Oi) its,c lf through an arrthor z<:d agenl l^;ithout leavc of t-hr, Co;-t t herefore, tf^e 'in lirg rer:or',Jed by thc tr.al Court at ;ager Nos. 13 and 1. r>f the Or-iginal Order regard ng p rt;entation by proper pcr;on before thc trral Court rs h€tr(,1)y t;et aside H,lw,3v tr. in a separatc applicat or, if , I Iec by the re visio I pertitioner, the trial Court rs dirr:r.i.r.rd :o decide the rna ntainabilrty ol the presentatror of I,l i: pl; int by an aLrthcr zrrd aclert, wrthout cavc of -rt: :ourt in ar.co'd rnce with ..l r^r <lt approplatC st,rg€ 26. Ir vir:rnr of nry foregoing dijcLlssi() r,. I find no grounL:; io tnlerf ere \vtih the irndirtc. of r I t-ial Court w rile: t xr:rr_ising oowcr of supci'rntcnljence rinder Article 2,17 of tIte Consi. tutror] of India srr-ir_c the tr al Court did cc)mrni no error and or the other h rnd, t is based on the sr: tlec ler;a nr'|crplcs. Accr,r6. 1611,7 fre point iS

M5M,]

cRP 3414 2016

answered in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff and

¶572

against the revision petitioner/defendant

¶573